Debbie,
In my opinion the 997 is NEVER redundant. I recommend to all of my clients
that they establish a business policy requiring a 997 for all transmitted
interchanges, with detail down to the element level and that they always
return a 997 to all trading partners. This is the only and best way to get a
complete end-to-end audit trail.
Re your assumption that you'll not be liable for paying an invoice you deem
in error and for which you return an 824 to the originator....this should be
doumented and agreed to between your company and your trading partner(s).
Make no assumptions. The 824 is a generic application advice transaction set
and implies no such assumption or agreement.
Rachel
Hi all,
We are planning to use an 824 Application Advice transaction to indicate to
our trading partners that an 810 invoice they sent us had problems. Should
we request they return us a 997 to indicate they received the 824?? In my
mind, I'm thinking the 824 is saying we aren't obligated to pay the invoice
until the errors are corrected....if we don't verify they received this
transaction, we could potentially be dinged for a late payment.
Are any of you doing the same thing?? Is the 997 really kind of
redundant???
Thanks in advance!!!
Debbie Shaver
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
206.318.8739
=======================================================================
To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
=======================================================================
To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
